Radley's latest post makes clear that my earlier post badly misunderstood his position. My apologies. In its Fourth Amendment cases, the Supreme Court routinely refers to "invasion" of a home to mean any physical access, and I assumed Radley was using the word in the way the Supreme Court does, not to refer only to no-knock paramilitary raids. Radley seems to think my misunderstanding was in bad faith; it wasn't. In any event, I regret the misunderstanding.

In its Fourth Amendment cases, the Supreme Court routinely refers to "invasion" of a home to mean any physical access, and I assumed Radley was using the word in the way the Supreme Court does, not to refer only to no-knock paramilitary raids.

An underhanded apology if I ever saw one! Good debate otherwise, though. Plus, I clicked through to TheAgitator for the first time...I appreciate the tip. Keep it up, fellas.

The overarching lessons: Don't live on the same block as any potentially suspected criminals and wear your bullet-proof vests to bed.

That's a heck of a lot classier a response than Balko gave me when he mischaracterized my position on a few things recently. When I pointed it out, I got a response that said, essentially, "whatever."

Sincerely practicing good manners and thoughtfulness produces many classy results that pounding the table never will. Even when one is technically correct. Maybe especially when one is techically correct.

I agree with Fub about manners. I came here and discovered blogging after Eugene hit me on my manners and tone in a listserve group, and have stayed because of the manners here. The few times I have been called an idiot, it was always done nicely. If only the rest of my blogging experiences could live up to level of the site where I discovered it.

Sincerely practicing good manners and thoughtfulness produces many classy results that pounding the table never will. Even when one is technically correct. Maybe especially when one is techically correct.

Nevertheless, there is a point there. I have just apologized for my lack of politeness in pointing out his factual errors. Doesn't mean I appreciate his calling me "sleazy," or calling my valid complaints about his factual errors "bulls--t."

Wow, Patterico, the sincerity of your "apology" is overwhelming.....especially when you come to other sites to air your grievances against Balko in three separate posts in one day.

Here's a hint: no one cares about your apology on this site.

Speak for yourself. Patterico did yeoman's work in correcting some of the misinformation that was being spread by some of the more knee-jerk opponents of the War on Some Drugs. Had he not posted in the comments on this site, I and others might have believed that this was an innocent woman who was gunned down by police officers who went to the wrong house. Instead we now know that she shot three police officers who identified themselves as such, that the police in fact had gone to the right house, and did in fact find illegal drugs in the home. Facts like that may not matter to those who will oppose anything having to do with the War on Some Drugs but they do in fact matter to most people.

Yes. According to the police chief a small amount of marijuana. There is probably a "small amount of marijuna" in every other house in America (unbeknownst to Mom and Dad or to Grandma). In my state it's a petty misdemeanor (expressly not a "crime").

Thorley, you seem to have a problem distinguishing between "Facts" and "police claims." What Radley was pointing out was how suspicious it was that the cops weren't touting the large pile of white powder they usually trot out when they make a drug bust. All they would do is say that they found "suspected narcotics."

Nothing Patterico said "corrects" the claim that this was an innocent woman who was gunned down by police officers who went to the wrong house. (In fact, police now admit that they found a "small amount of marijuana," which is not actually "suspected narcotics" at all.)

And I don't know where you get the idea that they identified themselves as such; it was a no-knock warrant.

What I was saying at first was that we should reserve judgment until the facts came out.

They're starting to come out, and they're not pretty.

I wouldn't pay much attention to Tefnut. He actively tried to get banned at my site, and once he was banned, he came back to insult me under several different names. His IP address is one shared by comment spammers I have fought at my site, leading me to wonder whether he is a professional spammer himself. He certainly does have multiple IP addresses available to him, such that he can switch from one to another in minutes.

Incidentally, in another post we debated how hard it was to get a no-knock warrant, with our two law enforcement representatives here claiming it took extensive work to justify such a warrant, and that police had to demonstrate exigent circumstances. I pointed out that this was true on paper, but in real life, the mere recitation of the word 'drugs' would create exigent circumstances for the right magistrate.

Now that we've seen the affidavits, we know the complete evidence of 'exigent circumstances': an alleged $50 drug buy, and the allegation that the dealer had surveillance cameras at the house. (Note that this doesn't make sense, as a matter of logic. If they knocked-and-announced, the cameras would be superfluous. So, "he'll know we're coming, so we can't knock-and-announce"? Huh?)

Patterico:

News reports said they identified themselves before coming in.

But given the numerous contradictions to date, I'm not sure I believe anything this department says anymore.

Regardless of contradictions, that's obviously an LEO lie -- one of the more common ones, like 'it was a consent search.' It's not credible. Why would they obtain a no-knock and then vitiate the no-knock by announcing themselves in advance? They may have identified themselves as they were entering, but beforehand? Flunks the laugh test.